Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation P6 dupes and alternatives Natasha Denona
4.5 (2,944)·Medium · Warm · peach undertone
Closest shade match is the equivalent shade, scored on colour, depth and undertone only. Closest overall alternative is the most similar foundation overall, scored on shade match (55%), finish and visual result (25%), wear and performance (15%) and skin suitability (5%).
Overall alternativesShade matchesRanked by the overall match: the most similar foundation on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Ranked by the overall match: the most similar foundation on shade, finish, wear and skin suitability together. Each row leads with its overall match; the shade match is beneath it.
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: Tan skin with a golden undertone
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same medium coverage
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
70
Wear & performance
53
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 6% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: medium with warm golden undertones
Matches: Near-identical swatch colour· Similar undertone (neutral vs warm)· Same radiant finish
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed· No long-wear claim
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
74
Wear & performance
40
Skin suitability
67
Looks identical · Radiant · Light coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Light rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · No long-wear claim · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
$25Ulta Beauty(product price)$27 less (52%)4.2 (812)
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Same medium coverage
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish· No blurring effect claimed· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
94
Finish & visual result
64
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
56
Very close colour · Natural · Medium coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Natural rather than radiant finish · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
$42Ulta Beauty(product price)$10 less (19%)4.4 (38)
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
83
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 3% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Very close colour· Both claim a blurring effect· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
82
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
60
Very close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Olive rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: Tan skin with neutral-olive undertones
Matches: Very close colour· Claims transfer resistance· Claims a lightweight feel
Differences: Luminous rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
84
Finish & visual result
72
Wear & performance
51
Skin suitability
84
Very close colour · Luminous · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): no ingredient list for one product
Differences: Luminous rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Does not claim not settling into lines
Matches: Both claim a blurring effect· Claims a lightweight feel· No drying alcohol listed
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone· Natural rather than radiant finish· Buildable rather than medium coverage
Score details
Shade match
81
Finish & visual result
81
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
60
Close colour · Natural · Buildable coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 2% ingredient overlap
Differences: Neutral rather than warm undertone · Natural rather than radiant finish · Buildable rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for sensitive skin
Retailer shade note: Tan skin with a golden-neutral undertone
Matches: Very close colour· Same warm undertone· Both claim a blurring effect
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· Does not claim not settling into lines
Score details
Shade match
92
Finish & visual result
54
Wear & performance
54
Skin suitability
33
Very close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · Does not claim not settling into lines · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin
Matches: Same warm undertone· Both claim not settling into lines· No drying alcohol listed
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish· Full rather than medium coverage· No blurring effect claimed
Score details
Shade match
90
Finish & visual result
43
Wear & performance
82
Skin suitability
28
Close colour · Matte · Full coverage
Ingredients (not scored): 5% ingredient overlap
Differences: Matte rather than radiant finish · Full rather than medium coverage · No blurring effect claimed · Not marketed for dry/sensitive skin · Contains listed fragrance
Retailer shade note: for medium to tan skin with warm yellow undertones
The closest shade to Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation P6 (Medium · Warm · peach undertone) in each concealer range, compared on measured colour, depth and undertone. Price never changes the order.
Concealer shade colours are sampled from retailer swatch images, so check the shade on the retailer page before buying.
Why the closest shade match works
MAC Cosmetics Studio Fix Fluid SPF 15 Foundation in NC40, against Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in P6. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeP6Closest shade matchNC40How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall97
Colour60%96#e2935d#e09564Looks identicalColour difference 1.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%99MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 0.5
Retailer descriptionMedium tanMedium tanBoth described as medium tanThe retailers describe the same depth
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared35
Finish35%12RadiantMatteDifferentMatte finish rather than radiant
Coverage30%60MediumFullSome differenceFull coverage rather than medium
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall61
Longevity30%7018-hour wear24-hour wearSome difference24-hour wear claimed against 18-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
Settling20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim not settling into pores or fine lines
Colour stability15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims colour stability (no oxidation); your product does not list it
Comfort15%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims a comfortable, lightweight feel; your product does not list it
Skin suitability5% of overall30
Skin type100%30Normal, dry, sensitiveNormal, oilyBoth marketed for normal skin
Overall match 73/100Shade match 97/100High confidence· Digital match
Weights are each part's share of the overall match and each attribute's share of its part; an attribute neither product lists is not comparable and its weight goes to the others in its part. Confidence reflects data quality, not similarity. Price and ingredients are not part of either score.
Hourglass Illusion Luminous Glow Foundation SPF 30 in 16, against Natasha Denona Hy-Glam Foundation Hydrating & Blurring Luminous Longwear Serum Foundation in P6. Every attribute compared, with its share of the score.
ComparedYour shadeP6Closest overall alternative16How they compareScore
Shade match55% of overall94
Colour60%90#e2935d#d99264Very close colourColour difference 2.3 (0 is identical)
Depth15%97MediumMediumSameDepth difference: 1.7
Retailer descriptionMedium tanMediumSome differenceRetailer descriptions one depth band apart
Finish & visual result25% of overall · 3 of 4 compared89
Finish35%100RadiantRadiantSameSame radiant finish
Coverage30%100MediumMediumSameSame medium coverage
Skin-like finish20%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a skin-like finish
Blurring15%40ClaimedNot listedSome differenceOnly your product claims a blurring or smoothing effect; the match does not list it
Wear & performance15% of overall · 3 of 5 compared70
Longevity30%7018-hour wear12-hour wearSome difference12-hour wear claimed against 18-hour wear
Transfer resistance20%40Not listedClaimedSome differenceThe match claims transfer resistance; your product does not list it
Settling20%100ClaimedClaimedSameBoth products claim not settling into pores or fine lines
Colour stability15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists colour stability (no oxidation)
Comfort15%—not comparableNot listedNot listedNot claimed by eitherNeither product lists a comfortable, lightweight feel
Skin suitability5% of overall60
Skin type100%60Normal, dry, sensitiveNormal, dry, combinationBoth marketed for normal/dry skin
Overall match 87/100Shade match 94/100Medium confidence· Digital match
Weights are each part's share of the overall match and each attribute's share of its part; an attribute neither product lists is not comparable and its weight goes to the others in its part. Confidence reflects data quality, not similarity. Price and ingredients are not part of either score.
32 similar shades scored two ways: the shade match on colour, depth and undertone; the overall match on shade match, finish and visual result, wear and performance and skin suitability. Ingredients are shown for information and used by the filters only. Prices are shown next to every match and never change a score. How scoring and confidence work.
Shade colours are sampled from Beautler’s processing of retailer swatch images and are a digital approximation. Prices and stock were last checked when the product was imported; the retailer page is the source of truth.
SephoraCosts $8 more
